Law Does Not Countenance Resurrection Of Stale Claims Through Inventive Drafting: Karnataka High Court Rejects 20-Year-Old Partition Dispute CPC Provisions Cannot Be Used to Transfer Consumer Complaints Across States: NCDRC Invokes Section 62 to End Forum-Shifting Ordeal in Nirmal Spinning Mills Case FSSA Provisions Prevail Over PFA Act In Cases Of Overlapping Jurisdiction, Prosecution Under Old Act Impermissible: J&K High Court Motive Pales Into Significance When Direct Ocular Evidence Establishes Crime; Enmity Is A Double-Edged Sword: Allahabad High Court Plaintiff Cannot Succeed Merely On Weakness Of Defence; Initial Burden To Prove Claim Rests On Claimant: Madras High Court Witness Threats Noted By Higher Courts Disentitle Convict To Suspension Of Sentence: Gujarat High Court Family Court Orders Must Be Enforced Immediately, Pendency Of Applications No Excuse For Disobedience: Delhi High Court 'Fraud And Justice Never Dwell Together': Karnataka High Court Reverses Order To Grant Land Based On Fabricated Records Development Authority Competent To Sanction Land Use Conversion From Residential To Nursing Home If Permitted Under Master Plan & Zoning Regulations: Allahabad High Court Notification Changing Import Policy From 'Free' To 'Restricted' Operative Only From Exact Time Of Publication In E-Gazette: Delhi High Court On Name Of Protection of the Complainer Excluding Relevant Defence Evidence in Sexual Offences Trials May Breach Fair Trial Rights: UK Supreme Court Boundaries In Sale Deed Prevail Over Discrepancy In Property Description; Adverse Possession Begins From Date Of Hostile Notice: Punjab & Haryana HC Supreme Court of UK Upholds HMRC Decision: Professional Fees Incurred by Investment Holding Company Are Capital Expenditure Criminal Law Cannot Be Used To Silence Citizens Questioning Legality Of Police Action: Madras High Court Quashes Obstruction Case Punjab & Haryana High Court Directs Centre To Treat Ashok Khemka As Empaneled For Future Assignments, Says Denying Relaxation Granted To Peers Is Discriminatory Section 34 Court Cannot Substitute Arbitrator’s Plausible View With Its Own; Not Bound By Technical Rules Of Evidence Act: Madras High Court Article 227 Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked To Reopen Decrees Finalized Four Decades Ago: Allahabad High Court Dismisses Challenge To 1985 Order Daughter Has No Right To Inherit Agricultural Land If Succession Opened Before 2005 HSA Amendment: Delhi High Court Rejects Plaint Indian Trust Act Inapplicable To Public Religious Endowments; Sale Of Charity Property Without HR&CE Commissioner's Permission Void: Madras High Court Supreme Court Clarifies Status of Collateral Warranties Under Construction Contracts FIR Quashed Against Newsclick: PMLA Proceedings Cannot Stand Alone Without A Predicate Offence, Rules Delhi High Court Assessee Claiming TDS Exemption On "Reimbursement" To Non-Residents Must Obtain Mandatory Tax Determination Under Section 195(2): Madras High Court

Bail Denied in Rape Case: RJ HC

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


 The Rajasthan High Court denied Godman Asaram Bapu's motion to suspend sentences in a case involving the sexual assault of a minor [Asharam @ Ashumal v. State of Rajasthan].

Justices Vinit Kumar Mathur and Sandeep Mehta were hearing the third application filed by Bapu after he was convicted and sentenced to life in prison for sexually assaulting a minor and sentenced to life in prison.

The Jodhpur bench of the High Court ruled that the appellant did not merit bail based on the nature and severity of the allegations, as well as the fact that the appeal itself was ready for hearing.

Asaram filed the petition on the grounds that he was an 83-year-old elderly man suffering from multiple ailments.

He stated that he had been incarcerated for nine years and seven months, and therefore deserved bail.

It was also stated that it was evident from a cursory reading of the victim's statement that he was not guilty of the crimes for which he was convicted.

The court, however, did not find sufficient evidence to grant the application.

2013 saw the arrest of Asaram Bapu on charges of raping a minor girl. The alleged offence occurred in the Manai village of Jodhpur in August 2013.

On August 20, 2013, a FIR was initially registered against him. In accordance with the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the Juvenile Justice Act (JJ Act), and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offenses (POCSO) Act, he was arrested at midnight on August 31, 2013.

According to the chargeseet submitted in November 2013, Asaram and the other accused were indicted for various violations of the Indian Penal Code, the Juvenile Justice Act, and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offenses Act, including trafficking, rape, outraging a woman's modesty, wrongful confinement, and criminal intimidation.

Following Asaram's arrest, two women from Surat filed a complaint alleging they were raped between 2002 and 2005 by Asaram and his son.

The felony trial for the alleged rape in Jodhpur began in 2014 and lasted four years. In the course of the trial, nine witnesses were attacked, and three were murdered.

The applicant was represented by Senior Advocate Devadatt Kamat, Advocates Rajesh Inamdar and RS Saluja, and the respondent was represented by AAG Anil Joshi, Public Prosecutor RR Chhaperwal, and Advocate PC Solanka.

D.D:07-07-2022

Asharam @ Ashumal versus. State of Rajasthan 

Latest Legal News